Hey everyone! Got on here from a suggestion from a friend. You peeps seem so smart on here.

Views: 898

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thanx, Cu. I enjoy having my thoughts challenged too. So if you spot flawed reasoning, please point it out. I like walking but a few seconds of jogging bores me.

Wait what ? The LHC is arguably the greatest modern engineering / scientific achievement. The Higgs Boson for one. Much of the data hasn't even been processed yet. What about the Kepler Telescope, that has discovered extra solar rocky planets, the LIGO gravitational wave detectors and the James Webb Telescope ( in development ) ? All are costly endeavors that answer questions about the universe.

John, the LHC has not yet found the Higgs boson. W-a-y down in the Wikipedia article on the Collider is:

"Second run (2015 onward)
At the conference EPS-HEP 2015 in July, the collaborations presented first cross-section measurements of several particles at the higher collision energy.

On 15 December 2015, the ATLAS and CMS experiments both reported a number of preliminary results for Higgs physics, supersymmetry (SUSY) searches and exotics searches using 13 TeV proton collision data. Both experiments saw a moderate excess around 750 GeV in the two-photon invariant mass spectrum,[142][143][144] but the experiments did not confirm the existence of the hypothetical particle in an August 2016 report.[145][146][147]"

Let me re-phrase that as per the official CERN website: On 4 July 2012, the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider announced they had each observed a new particle in the mass region around 126 GeV. This particle is consistent with the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model.

On 8 October 2013 the Nobel prize in physics (link is external) was awarded jointly to François Englert and Peter Higgs "for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider."

I am not a Physicist but I think that most of these great projects are under funded, not over funded. I am referring to the LHC, James Webb Telescope and LIGO ( among other things ). The LHC is funded by multiple countries and has physicists from around the world.

It appears that, in your argument with Joseph P, you were saying that Cosmology and Theoretical Physics is no different than religion ? Theories often are created long before they are proven or dis-proven. As long as they are peer reviewed and follow the scientific method they are valid attempts to explain nature. How else can you attempt to explain the origins of the universe ?

John wrote, "How else can you attempt to explain the origins of the universe ?"

I started, John, by doubting that the entire universe was once so small that it occupied less space than a single nuclear particle.

If you can accept that, you can accept Georges LeMaitre's mathematical "proof" of the Genesis
account. In his time, the 1930-1950s, Xians eagerly accepted it.

BTW, I did not say Cosmology and Theoretical Physics are no different than religion. I said there is no eviidence for either religion or the Big Bang.

" I started, John, by doubting that the entire universe was once so small that it occupied less space than a single nuclear particle.

If you can accept that, you can accept Georges LeMaitre's mathematical "proof" of the Genesis
account. In his time, the 1930-1950s, Xians eagerly accepted it.

BTW, I did not say Cosmology and Theoretical Physics are no different than religion. I said there is no eviidence for either religion or the Big Bang. "

I will have to read about that mathematical proof of genesis. That sounds funny.

At what size do you think the universe began ? Or do you not think it has a beginning ? I am curious and not trying to argue.

There is a near consensus of most prominent physicists that the universe was once on a subatomic scale, operating under quantum laws. The greatest conundrum in physics, though, is linking relativity with the quantum realm. To me it just seems intuitive that the 4 forces were once singularly linked in a very compressed, early universe. It is also theorized that a black hole can reach a singularity and spawn another universe. I don't accept such things as ultimate truth, but they seem logical as the best current candidate theories. Such theories are also widely accepted among such people as Lisa Randall, Brian Greene, Hawking, Michio Kaku, Kip Thorne and so on.

At what size do you think the universe began ?

John, Your question assumes a beginning but where is the evidence? Until there is evidence, I won't hypothesize a beginning size.

There is a near consensus of most prominent physicists....

Investigative reporters follow the trail of money. We taxpayers pay the salaries of many physicists. 

To me it just seems intuitive....

Many human societies have creation myths. Google the term.

             It is also theorized that a black hole....

Try "It is hypothesized that a black hole...." Then, find evidence for the hypothesis.

              Such theories are also widely accepted among such people as....

Again, follow the trail of money.

Get information. Visit www.newtoeu.com and download the free PDF file.

John, for lots of education via You Tube clips, visit

www.thunderbolts.info

It may be slow to load.

It appears the universe is expanding. As far as I know the "Big bang theory" has not riser to the level of being an actual theory. I do not know. I am not happy that I will never "know" but I can go on with my life quite happily with not knowing the answer. Theist love to jump in with the dishonest answer about this time that I have been honest. I know "therefore God" at least I will die with integrity.

I agree, Joseph, training in the skilled trades, in electronics, in health care, in law and law enforcement, and many other fields, a person needs to learn the principles and techniques of a discipline. Of course, apprenticeships offer valuable training, as does working beside a skilled practitioner. Formal education is not the only education sources of learning. With the high costs of formal education, low and middle-income families find it more difficult to save enough for formal education. We lose valuable people who have the aptitude but not the financial resources. Scholarships and grants offer help for some, but not for all who want and have the ability to learn. We simply can't afford to lose those people; 

Really, I'd consider an apprenticeship to be a form of formal training.  It's perhaps a bit less regimented than a college education, but it generally involves years of training by experienced professionals.

That sort of thing works pretty well in an applications-based role, yeah. Sometime there are a couple years of trade school, too, but there are fields in which even that isn't really necessary.

RSS

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service